AMD Announces FidelityFX Super Resolution 3 (FSR 3) Fluid Motion Rivaling DLSS 3, Broad Hardware Support

[fevgatos]

So Intels out of the box default is to use up to 320W? No, their official power spec is 253W

Yes, the 13900ks default is 320w. Actually most mobo manafacturers run every Intel cpu without any power limits.

 

[Assimilator]

We should ask W1zz to review CPU's in their stock and official state instead of the way they come out of the box, it just makes AMD look better.

Reviews don't exist to stroke your tiny AMD-loving ego.

 

[AusWolf]

If you don't have a monitor, and you don't buy anything, you won't have a monitor. So what the heck are you talking about

Have I not been saying in the last 3 posts or so that I game at 1080p? How would I do that without a monitor? So what the heck are YOU talking about?

Antilag has nothing to do with reflex so no, it wouldn't be at 63ms. There are tests out there you know, why do we have to make stuff up?


Reflex makes a significant different in latency, antilag doesn't. Here you go. As i've been saying, Reflex + FG = same latency as amd at native. So if you have an AMD card, you just cannot talk about latency. It's a joke, you should stop.

Why, what does reflex do? Isn't that the thing that limits frames queued in the render pipeline to 1? Because that's exactly what Anti-Lag does, too. They both work well in certain cases, so as far as I'm concerned, you just hand-picked a case where Anti-Lag isn't that great, or when the FPS it works with doesn't offer a significant benefit. Because if there are no frames queued in the first place due to your FPS not exceeding your monitor's refresh rate (or for any other reason), limiting their number to 1 won't offer anything extra.

 

[Assimilator]

Why, what does reflex do? Isn't that the thing that limits frames queued in the render pipeline to 1?

No. Please educate yourself.

 

[AusWolf]

No. Please educate yourself.

From the article: "Basically, the implementation of the SDK helps the game’s engine schedule renderings smartly and quickly, which effectively reduces the GPU render queue and removes loads from the CPU, keeping the CPU and GPU in sync."

It sounds to me like it does exactly what I thought it does. (BTW, that's exactly why I asked - to educate myself.)

 

[dyonoctis]

So Intels out of the box default is to use up to 320W? No, their official power spec is 253W https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-36m-cache-up-to-6-00-ghz/specifications.html

"The processor base power is now stepped up to 150 W, compared to 125 W for the i9-13900K, while interestingly, the maximum turbo power stays at 253 W. Intel may not list it in the specs, particularly its ARK product information page, but the i9-13900KS has a 320 W maximum turbo power mode "Extreme Power Delivery Profile" that is enabled by default in the motherboard BIOS, making it the processor's unofficial maximum turbo power value."

We should ask W1zz to review CPU's in their stock and official state instead of the way they come out of the box, it just makes AMD look better.

Official specs and motherboard stock value won't always correlate. 90% of the benchmarks out there are made with the Bios stock value. Looks the document below coming straight from intel. 320w PL1 and PL2 is an official Intel spec for the 13900KS.
For the other intel CPU 125w PL1 and 253w PL2 is also an official spec, but most motherboard will run a K cpu with 253w PL1 and PL2, even though it's only supposed to be an official spec for the core i9. anything below should have a PL1 of 125w. And I won't even mention the fact that most Zx90 motherboard will run a K CPU with unlimited PL1 and PL2 by default. I don't know if you lived under a rock, but the motherboard stock settings not following the minimal specs has been somewhat of an issue lately. Actually, running stock with a K CPU will require you to change the bios stock value to follow the specs.

 

[R0H1T]

I don't know if you lived under a rock, but the motherboard stock settings not following the minimal specs has been somewhat of an issue lately. Actually, running stock with a K CPU will require you to change the bios stock value to follow the specs.

And I don't know if you've been living under the same rock but if Intel really wanted to they could very easily enforce those numbers! Like I've said dozens of times Intel has enforced many of its rules heavy handedly in the past ~ around 2013(14?) when non Z 9x OCing was thing with Haswell it lasted around a year or slightly more but then Intel nuked it first with a ucode patch through Windows & then permanently through BIOS updates. They've been doing this since Sandy Bridge like clockwork & if they really wanted to not look that good against AMD they could readily make the mobo makers comply ~ but that is bad for business & makes them look "weak" against AMD. And curiously this has popped up IIRC only after Zen, I wonder why

 

[Fluffmeister]

I guess it's apt, even this thread has become a blurry mess of random pixels.

 

[Steevo]

ITT, AMD makes something good for competition, this angers Nvidiots and they let it be known that Intel and Nvidia are the only true god.

Seriously, it’s been a good joshing back and forth but it’s truly about how AMD is climbing out of the hole they have been in for years and some people have to hate, it’s confusing at the least, and I could say mean things but instead I have been gaming and buying my first Porsche. I hope the haters all the best.

 

[dyonoctis]

And I don't know if you've been living under the same rock but if Intel really wanted to they could very easily enforce those numbers! Like I've said dozens of times Intel has enforced many of its rules heavy handedly in the past ~ around 2013(14?) when non Z 9x OCing was thing with Haswell it lasted around a year or slightly more but then Intel nuked it first with a ucode patch through Windows & then permanently through BIOS updates. They've been doing this since Sandy Bridge like clockwork & if they really wanted to not look that good against AMD they could readily make the mobo makers comply ~ but that is bad for business & makes them look "weak" against AMD. And curiously this has popped up IIRC only after Zen, I wonder why

I mean : Intel Blocks BCLK Overclocking on 13th Gen Core non-K CPUs Across All Motherboards | Hardware Times. Intel is still blocking overclock where it's not meant to be overclocked.
But intel doesn't seem to care when their partners are applying an overclock on K cpus on the Bios stock settings.
Don't Run Z490 Motherboards with Default Settings: Thermals, Power, Boosting, & MCE for 10th Gen CPUs | GamersNexus - Gaming PC Builds & Hardware Benchmarks

I'm sorry if I sounded like an asshole, but 12th and 13th going beyond their power limits is not an Intel spec, it's an overclock by the motherboard's makers. And this is obviously creating a lot of confusing about the behavior of 12th and 13th gen. "Even if you power limit a core i9 to 253w it will consume 350w sometimes" is false.

 

[R0H1T]

Did you miss the part where they allowed OCing on Haswell generation for around a year or more? I know because I had bought the H97 just for that reason! They've also allowed this on nearly every mobo since Z 6x(?) for anywhere between a few weeks to a few months.

I'm sorry if I sounded like an asshole, but 12th and 13th going beyond their power limits is not an Intel spec, it's an overclock by the motherboard's makers. And this is obviously creating a lot of confusing about the behavior of 12th and 13th gen. "Even if you power limit a core i9 to 253w it will consume 350w sometimes" is false.

Sure but it is at least tacitly approved by Intel & please don't pretend that mobo makers won't follow Intel "guidelines" if Intel forced them to.

The reason they do it with non Z boards is obvious ~ OCing (Z)boards are more expensive.

 

[dyonoctis]

Did you miss the part where they allowed OCing on Haswell generation for around a year or more? I know because I had bought the H97 just for that reason! They've also allowed this on nearly every mobo since Z 6x(?) for anywhere between a few weeks to a few months.

Sure but it is at least tacitly approved by Intel & please don't pretend that mobo makers won't follow Intel "guidelines" if Intel forced them to.

The reason they do it with non Z boards is obvious ~ OCing (Z)boards are more expensive.

My first PC was a Haswell i5 4440 on a B85 vanguard, and Intel already rolled the no-OC firmware, so yes, I missed that part.

The person that I responded to assumed that because the 13900KS reached 320w in some benchmark, when the intel ARK page show that it shouldn't use more than 253w, it meant that a core i9 will ignore the PL2 set in the BIOS and use more power anyway. Which isn't the case, the confusion happened because intel and their partner are very liberal when it comes to BIOS stock settings, and you need to be aware of that before saying that not respecting the PL2 set in the bios is part of the core i9 stock behavior. If you power limit a core i9 to 200w it will not go beyond that.
What intel is tacitly approving is setting an unlimited PL, not disrespecting the PL set in the BIOS.

 

[95Viper]

You were told to stop the off topic posting and the bickering.
Thread locked.